On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has
been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him
advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.


A big part of the problem is the countless formulas required by the EPA
for cities around the country.......the economies of scale are lost thanks
to guvmint regs.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.


Calif Bill wrote:
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

You're right, but you miss the point totally. What *should* have been
happening all along is that the price of gas rises with inflation. But
then the economy would not have had it's booms dependent on ridiculously
cheap transportation and the explosion of personal credit.

The price of gas is very low, considering inflation... that's why
everybody thinks SUVs are stylin'. But it is foolish policy that got us
here, and foolish consumerism that leads some people to the conclusion
that we should fight wars (against the whole world, if necessary) to
keep gas cheap.

And, as 'bb' rightly points out, our deadliest enemies are profiting
from our foolishness.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.


Calif Bill wrote:
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

You're right, but you miss the point totally. What *should* have been
happening all along is that the price of gas rises with inflation. But
then the economy would not have had it's booms dependent on ridiculously
cheap transportation and the explosion of personal credit.

The price of gas is very low, considering inflation... that's why
everybody thinks SUVs are stylin'. But it is foolish policy that got us
here, and foolish consumerism that leads some people to the conclusion
that we should fight wars (against the whole world, if necessary) to
keep gas cheap.

And, as 'bb' rightly points out, our deadliest enemies are profiting
from our foolishness.

DSK


You miss the point totally! If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.

Calif Bill wrote:
You miss the point totally!

Not at all. Here's the problem... you are not reading what I posted. You
replying with a canned preprogrammed message. This does not make you
sound intelligent.

... If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.

1- the economy *is* in the dumper.
2- the gov't *is* foolishly spending even more money

My point, which you clearly did not bother to read, is that if the price
of gasoline had climbed steadily with inflation, we would not be in
any of the several messes we are in now.

DSK

DSK wrote in message ...
Calif Bill wrote:
You miss the point totally!

Not at all. Here's the problem... you are not reading what I posted. You
replying with a canned preprogrammed message. This does not make you
sound intelligent.

... If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.

1- the economy *is* in the dumper.

What? I am trying figure out when the ecnomic Chicken Littles are
going to prove that.

Inflation is in check. Oh yeah... unemployment. Unemployement hasn't
been this bad since... well since... since... Clinton was in office.
The last time I looked at unemployment figures they were at something
5.8%. In 1996 they were at 5.6% and Clinton said it was a enough
reason to re-elect him.

Please don't try to tell me how today's 5.8% is different for
yesterdays. We measure unemployment the same way now as we did then.

This is a realistic economy. Unlike the overvalued boom we had in the
90s. There was no way to sustain that economy.

2- the gov't *is* foolishly spending even more money

Gotta give you that one. And a lot of republicans are not too
thrilled with GWB's stewardship of the nation's checkbook. But I am
not prepared to give it to John Kerry. Kerry will spend even more and
then try to tax the hell out of us. Even then - he will not be able
to keep up.

My point, which you clearly did not bother to read, is that if the price
of gasoline had climbed steadily with inflation, we would not be in
any of the several messes we are in now.

And rec.boats would be left to the handful of people that could afford
it.

Yes - oil has been cheap in the US. But even then - the only reason
it's significantly more expensive elsewhere is primarily because of
taxes. I always laugh at those that opine gas prices in the US are
artificially low (usually some part of the left wing). But gas in the
US really never costs much less than it does in Europe, even though
they historically have paid twice as much at the pump.

Curtis CCR wrote:
This is a realistic economy. Unlike the overvalued boom we had in the
90s. There was no way to sustain that economy.

What we have now is a small term depression. A steady decline in
aggregate demand nationally, and this is also reflected world wide.
Unemloyment isn't that bad, but the gov't is often saying two different
things (I tend to believe the nonpartisan GAO, which will not remain
nonpartisan if Bush gets reelected). If you count working at McDonalds
as full time manufacturing employment, then sure the economy is great.

The main reason why the economy isn't irretrievably in the dumber is
because Uncle Sam has been spending bazillions on the military for the
past two years... taking that into account, a "mediocre" national
economy sucks!



2- the gov't *is* foolishly spending even more money


Gotta give you that one. And a lot of republicans are not too
thrilled with GWB's stewardship of the nation's checkbook.

I think a number are less than thrilled with his armtwisting, too.


My point, which you clearly did not bother to read, is that if the price
of gasoline had climbed steadily with inflation, we would not be in
any of the several messes we are in now.


And rec.boats would be left to the handful of people that could afford
it.

Excuse me? Did you understand the point above? If you could afford
boating in 1970, and the price of gas kept up with inflation, you could
afford it now...

... I always laugh at those that opine gas prices in the US are
artificially low (usually some part of the left wing).

LOL anybody who disagrees is a wild-eyed left-winger, eh?

Take a look at refinery operating capacity, and the rate at which new
capacity is being built, and figure whether we are slipping. Prices are
not sustainable at this level, which is why they are going up. Duh.

DSK

On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:52:02 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.

Ok, who said anything about $10 a gallon gas? It's down to either you
or the strawman.

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:52:02 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.

Ok, who said anything about $10 a gallon gas? It's down to either you
or the strawman.

bb

You or your clone was saying $5 a gallon, so why not $10? You know what you
are, we are just arguing price now.